U.T.A.H. Cardiac Transplant Program, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA.
Circulation. 2013 Jan 29;127(4):452-62. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.100123. Epub 2012 Dec 27.
Survival of patients on left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has improved. We examined the differences in risk of adverse outcomes between LVAD-supported and medically managed candidates on the heart transplant waiting list.
We analyzed mortality and morbidity in 33,073 heart transplant candidates registered on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting list between 1999 and 2011. Five groups were selected: patients without LVADs in urgency status 1A, 1B, and 2; patients with pulsatile-flow LVADs; and patients with continuous-flow LVADs. Outcomes in patients requiring biventricular assist devices, total artificial heart, and temporary VADs were also analyzed. Two eras were defined on the basis of the approval date of the first continuous-flow LVAD for bridge to transplantation in the United States (2008). Mortality was lower in the current compared with the first era (2.1%/mo versus 2.9%/mo; P<0.0001). In the first era, mortality of pulsatile-flow LVAD patients was higher than in status 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; P<0.0001) and similar to that in status 1B patients (HR, 1.04; P=0.61). In the current era, patients with continuous-flow LVADs had mortality similar to that of status 2 (HR, 0.80; P=0.12) and lower mortality compared with status 1A and 1B patients (HR, 0.24 and 0.47; P<0.0001 for both comparisons). However, status upgrade for LVAD-related complications occurred frequently (28%) and increased the mortality risk (HR, 1.75; P=0.001). Mortality was highest in patients with biventricular assist devices (HR, 5.00; P<0.0001) and temporary VADs (HR, 7.72; P<0.0001).
Mortality and morbidity on the heart transplant waiting list have decreased. Candidates supported with contemporary continuous-flow LVADs have favorable waiting list outcomes; however, they worsen significantly once a serious LVAD-related complication occurs. Transplant candidates requiring temporary and biventricular support have the highest risk of adverse outcomes. These results may help to guide optimal allocation of donor hearts.
接受左心室辅助装置(LVAD)治疗的患者的存活率有所提高。我们研究了在心脏移植等待名单上,LVAD 支持的候选人和接受药物治疗的候选者之间不良结果的风险差异。
我们分析了 1999 年至 2011 年间在美国器官共享联合网络(UNOS)等待名单上登记的 33073 名心脏移植候选者的死亡率和发病率。选择了五个组:1A、1B 和 2 级紧急状态下没有 LVAD 的患者;使用搏动流 LVAD 的患者;和使用连续流 LVAD 的患者。还分析了需要双心室辅助装置、全人工心脏和临时 VAD 的患者的结果。根据美国批准的第一个用于桥接移植的连续流 LVAD 的日期(2008 年)定义了两个时期。与第一个时期相比,当前时期的死亡率较低(2.1%/月对 2.9%/月;P<0.0001)。在第一个时期,搏动流 LVAD 患者的死亡率高于 2 级(风险比[HR],2.15;P<0.0001),与 1B 级患者相似(HR,1.04;P=0.61)。在当前时期,连续流 LVAD 患者的死亡率与 2 级相似(HR,0.80;P=0.12),与 1A 和 1B 级患者相比,死亡率较低(HR,0.24 和 0.47;P<0.0001 均)。然而,LVAD 相关并发症的状态升级经常发生(28%),并增加了死亡风险(HR,1.75;P=0.001)。使用双心室辅助装置的患者(HR,5.00;P<0.0001)和临时 VAD 患者(HR,7.72;P<0.0001)的死亡率最高。
心脏移植等待名单上的死亡率和发病率有所下降。接受现代连续流 LVAD 支持的候选者等待名单结果良好;然而,一旦发生严重的 LVAD 相关并发症,他们的情况就会显著恶化。需要临时和双心室支持的移植候选者的不良结果风险最高。这些结果可能有助于指导供体心脏的最佳分配。